Edcuation Week 5/11/2011 issue

Popular AVID Program Yields Mixed Results in Chicago, p. 15

The Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR), based at the University of Chicago, has conducted a study of interventions intended to improve academic skills.  They looked at the AVID program (Advancement Via Individual Determination) that was being used in 14 Chicago high schools.  The AVID program encourages middle-achieving students (defined as those with a B, C, or D average) to enroll in advanced academic classes.  These students also take a daily elective that teaches study skills, organization, and critical thinking, and they are provided with tutoring.  AVID programs are used in more than 4500 schools nationwide.

The CCSR study looked at 14 Chicago schools that had stable AVID programs so that they would have data available from before AVID was implemented as well as after implementation.  They used a method called “propensity matching” to compare the performance of students who attended these schools before AVID to the performance of later students using the AVID program, matching students with similar academic and socioeconomic profiles.  The study concluded that AVID participants in 9^th grade gained little advantage over their non-AVID peers, and they remained off track for graduation and college.

Other studies had shown more positive results from AVID programs, although many of these studies did not meet U.S. Department of Education standards.  Unlike schools in these earlier studies, the Chicago schools that were chosen are generally low-peforming, without a long-established infrastructure of AP courses or a core of high-achieving peers.  Middle achievers on a national scale are high achievers in schools like these Chicago schools.  For an AVID program to be successful, it may need a school-wide support structure of advanced placement courses and high-achieving peers.

One critic of the study, an executive vice president of AVID, suggested that the study was too short-term to be conclusive.  He indicated that gains from AVID build up over the course of a student’s high school career.

Education Week 4/20/2011 issue

More Students Taking Tougher Courses, NAEP Study Finds, p. 6

Results from a 2009 study have revealed an increase in the percentage of high school graduates who have completed a “rigorous” curriculum, including higher-level math and science courses.  The percentage of students taking a “midlevel” curriculum has also increased, with more students moving up from a “standard” curriculum.  High school students overall are taking more classes at all levels, going from an average of 23.6 credits in 1990 to 27.2 credits in 2009.  Some of these additional credits result from summer school courses, high school credits for courses taken in middle school, and online courses.

Researchers also found a link between these curriculum levels and student achievement as measured by national assessments.  They found that students who take more rigorous courses in high school are more likely to perform well on achievement tests.  More minority students are taking higher-level courses than in previous years, although black and Hispanic students still lag behind white students.  Although more female grads took a rigorous or midlevel curriculum than in previous years, they generally scored lower in math and science than boys did.  The average GPA of 3.1 for girls was higher than the average for boys of 2.9.

These findings make a good argument for the adoption of common-core standards, which raise the standards for all.  If all students receive a more rigorous curriculum, they will be more likely to do better on national assessments.

Education Week 4/06/2011 issue

The Time Is Right to End ‘Zero Tolerance’, p. 35

One frequent accompaniment of school reform is an increasingly harsh application of zero-tolerance discipline policies.  These policies have resulted in suspension and expulsion rates in schools are at all-time highs, involving 3.3 million students in 2006, or one in 14 students.  Less than one in ten were for violent offenses, and most were for things like tardiness, talking back to a teacher, or violating dress codes.  Students of color were disproportionately affected:  in 2006 around 15% of blacks were suspended, compared to 7% of Hispanic students and 5% of white students.  Schools are simply excluding students who violate school rules, leaving the court systems to deal with issues that educators used to handle.  Schools are under increasing pressure to raise test scores, and this may also encourage the practice of pushing “problem” children out of school.

The result of this zero-tolerance emphasis is that increasing numbers of students are being denied access to those services that they need most, increasing the likelihood of them becoming involved with the criminal justice system instead—the “school to prison pipeline.”  In the U.S., more 18-to-24-year-old black men live in prison cells than in college dorm rooms.  What’s more, research has shown that this zero-tolerance approach fails to improve student behavior. 

Some school districts are implementing more positive preventative approaches to school discipline, such as creating respectful and welcoming school environments, teaching positive behavior skills and conflict resolution, and expanding access to academic and counseling services for students and families.  These approaches are more likely to support achievement, helping to close the school-to-prison pipleline.  Many of the men in prison today initially made one mistake—as children—and their education simply stopped.  If we can keep kids in school and give them a fair chance to learn, they will be less likely to wind up in prison.    

Education Week 3/30/2011 issue

Task Force Recommends Student Scores Be Included in National-Board Portfolios, p. 8

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), which oversees national board teaching certification, is considering the inclusion of standardized test scores.  Currently, board certification requires a teacher to pass rigorous assessments (including content and pedagogy) and to submit four classroom-based portfolios, including an analysis of their instruction.  Certification can be in any of 25 areas.  Portfolios include items such as lesson plans, reflective analyses, and student work samples.  Current guidelines are flexible enough to allow teachers to submit many different kinds of student work in their portfolios.

The Board is re-evaluating its guidelines to make sure that its assessments are in line with its standards.  Although it has up to now stayed out of the current discussion and controversy regarding standardized test scores as a measure of student growth in learning, it now wants to consider these for possible use as another component of a program for evaluating teachers.  Critics point to the current patchwork of local and state assessments, concluding that standardized tests are highly in doubt as a measure of student learning and teacher effectiveness. 

[Comment:  My first thought was that while a review of standards for national-board certification may be in order, I’m not sure it was wise for this Board to wade into the standardized tests as a measure of teacher effectiveness controversy.  It might have been better to wait until some sort of consensus emerges on this issue first.  But then it occurred to me that maybe they want to weigh in on this topic and help create a consensus.  They seem to think that standardized tests should be one component in evaluating teachers, and this may be the consensus position that they are promoting.]

Education Week 3/16/2011

D.C. Success Must Go Beyond Test Scores, Study Says, p. 6

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies has been hired to evaluate the effectiveness of  reforms to the D.C.  school system that were made during the tenure of its previous chancellor, Michelle Rhee.  While test scores have been going up in the district since Rhee came aboard in 2007 and implemented some major  reforms, the NRC says that test scores alone cannot prove students are learning better, nor can they be attributed to specific changes made by Rhee.  The NRC wants the district to beef up its longitudinal student data system so it can properly evaluate the effects of Rhee’s reforms.  The system for gathering this data is not up and running yet.  Most urban school systems have more sophisticated data systems than those in D.C.

Some problems with the current data:  There have been demographic changes in the district in recent years, such as an increase in the poverty rate, a decrease in the numbers of students with disabilities or with limited English proficiency, a decrease in black students, and an increase in white and Hispanic students.  Demographic changes can skew the data.  Also, it was noted that test scores were beginning to increase before the reforms were made.  A closer look at specific schools and specific areas will be in order as more data become available.

Education Week 3/09/2011 issue

Colleges Play Catch-Up With HEA, p. 15

Title II of the Higher Education Act’s 2008 reauthorization placed new reporting requirements on colleges of education and on the states, and some are having to scramble to catch up with the new requirements.  Previously they only had to report passing rates on teacher licensing tests, but Title II now requires them to provide “scaled scores” on these tests, which will allow state-wide comparisons, in effect generating “report cards” for the states and for individual colleges of education.  The Educational Testing Service (ETS) is providing this scaled-score information to 35 states and territories.

Some deans at colleges of education have questioned the comparability of the scores.  Randy Hitz at Portland State points out that there is variation among institutions in how they define “clinical experience,” for example.  But others point out that any information that goes beyond simple pass or fail is bound to be an improvement.  Also, scaled scores can help a school identify areas where it is weak.

[Question:  how do Oregon colleges of education compare?]

Education Week 3/02/2011 issue

Money, Public Policy Tangled in Wisconsin Labor Feud, p. 1

Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to cut back collective bargaining rights for most public employees has sparked a feud with teachers throughout the state.  Walker says that his proposal will help financially-strapped school districts by saving money to help offset upcoming reductions in state aid.  Wisconsin faces a $3.6 billion shortfall over the next two years.  His plan would require public employees to contribute more to their pensions and health care, so pension and health-care costs for school districts would be likely to decrease.  A more controversial part of his plan would limit unions’ collective bargaining to wages only, excluding benefits such as health care from these negotiations.

Local school administrators have questioned whether Scott’s proposals will in fact save them money in the years ahead.  If they do save them money in personnel expenses , thesesavings are unlikely to be enough to cover cuts in state aid.  They feel that such an approach will promote discord between teachers and school administrators, who often enjoy amicable relationships.

There is concern that Scott’s approach will spread to other states who find themselves in a similar budget crunch.  Ohio is considering proposals that would also limit collective bargaining in areas such as school assignments, class size.  It is also considering teacher pay based on merit and forbidding the exculsive use of seniority in determining teacher layoffs.  The feud in Wisconsin, with teachers staging a sit-in at the state capitol, has galvanized teachers’ unions  in other states.  More to come.

[A politic sidebar:  police and firefighters were excluded from the proposed changes.  Coincidentally, they were contributors to Walker’s gubernatorial campaign.]